Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Star wrote:
If you had read the entire thread I have stated i think TIME made a licensing mistake. I also think that that mistake should be costly so they don't make that type of mistake again. If they are not made to pay fines and such, then the whole point of licensing your photos goes out the window.
They made a mistake. I am very sorry for them. Because now they have to pay for that mistake. Have you completely lost your mind? You, a twenty something fledgling photo school grad is accusing Time of making mistakes based on what you've read on an internet site. You can't verify anything posted in this thread, yet you're demanding they pay punitive fines. You need to step back and assess what you've written in here, because right now you aren't looking too on top of your game. I think your emotions are ruling your logic.
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
Sockpuppet Studios wrote:
You have never shows proof of what TIME paid Istock for the image.
You have only been shown what Istock paid the photographer. READ THE THREAD
istock is contractually obligated to pay a min of .19 per credit. They didn't. So the other option is that istock tried to defraud their contributor. I find the idea of that kind of conspiracy does not stand the litmus test. TIME buying the wrong licensing does hold weight under the litmus test.
Photographer
MMDesign
Posts: 18647
Louisville, Kentucky, US
Star wrote:
read the blog, read the thread I did read the thread, and nowhere did I see a copy of a "Paid" invoice from Time, Inc., to iStock. In case I wasn't clear, who's to say that iStock isn't withholding payments as a way to skim profits? They certainly wouldn't be the first corporation to do so.
Photographer
Antonio Marcus
Posts: 1849
San Francisco, California, US
What about internet resources like photographersindex.com. Here are some numbers based on surveys of their participants... Type of Use:: Editorial Specific Use:: Magazine Press Run:: 1 to 3 Million Size:: Cover (Front) Low Price:: $950.00 Average Price:: $1,375.00 High Price:: $1,800.00 Survey ::751 Link to their stock price calculator.... http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US
Star wrote:
you are not very good at business. Neither are you
large 12 credits
multi-seat 75 credits (and yes they would have it on more then one computer at a time) You certainly don't know that.
unlimited reproduction 125
resale 125 Yes, they would need resale, but it was likely an oversight. Many newspapers offer reprints of articles with stock photos, and none of them pay the EL either.
and look at that I can order TIME on my Kindle well that means they need
electronic items for resale at 125 That would be incorrect. You don't need an EL for ebooks or the like. That EL is for templates and other things.
You know what, I am not arguing opinion here, i am arguing business and licenses. They are numbers. They aren't something you interpret. I may not be good at some things, but I am good at numbers. I am good at figuring out licenses and contract. Apparently you think so.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Star wrote:
actually by violating the licensing agreement they could be help liable for up to $150,000 per violation AND in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony.
saying that violating a contract should be a serious offense isn't whining or ranting. I am being cool and calm. So far nobody has shown number that contradict me.
Copyright and licensing violations are serious business. They should be treated as such, especially when concerning one of the largest magazines in the world.
Here is the calculator guys: http://www.istockphoto.com/photographer-royalties.php
you make the numbers work
and to the OP was the $31.50 for the entire month, or just that one download? I'm tempted to send the photo editor at Time a link to this thread. It would be interesting to read their take on the matter. I have a feeling it would be quite different from your take.
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US
Star wrote:
istock is contractually obligated to pay a min of .19 per credit. They didn't. I wouldn't want you to get accused of libel, so you may want to stop being a broken record.
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6850
Phoenix, Arizona, US
So, Im trying to decide if I should pull all of my images off of iStock or not.
All 2 of them
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
Robert Randall wrote:
Have you completely lost your mind? You, a twenty something fledgling photo school grad is accusing Time of making mistakes based on what you've read on an internet site. You can't verify anything posted in this thread, yet you're demanding they pay punitive fines. You need to step back and assess what you've written in here, because right now you aren't looking too on top of your game. I think your emotions are ruling your logic. 1. why do you think i am 20 something (beyond that how does age have anything to do with facts.)
2. show some sort of facts to support your argument
3. I am not alone
>>>It has been shown that TIME was in violation of 2 parts of the istock contract...
Wouldn't it be great if, because of the closer look taken by the people in this discourse, iStockphoto were able to collect a more fair and resonable rate for this cover, and in turn, pass it along to Mr. Lam? The end result would be that everyone would realize that the photo was worth much more, and Mr. Lam would realize what his photos really are worth. I suggest someone at iStockphoto contact Time over these material breaches of their contract. (Well researched, Star Foreman!)
the above was written here by John Harrington
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … style.html
4. verification- why don't you verify something, anything. All you have done is personally attack me. All i have done is show numbers.
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
Robert Randall wrote:
I'm tempted to send the photo editor at Time a link to this thread. It would be interesting to read their take on the matter. I have a feeling it would be quite different from your take. I would prefer you sent them a link to my blog, here is the link for you
http://imaginarium-the.blogspot.com/
Photographer
Scott A Miller photo
Posts: 5627
Orlando, Florida, US
Digital Planet Design wrote:
So, then you are not concerned with the well being of everyone who wishes to call themselves a photographer, ie., the industry as a whole. Gotcha. I see you read no further than "no."
Let me explain further my answer since you obviously wanted more.
When established pubs such as Time but these images that are so unvalued by the seller -- be it micro stock or a GWC/hobbyist newbie it hurts everyone.
Case in point and I'll stay with-in the Time-Warner - parent of TIME- for you.
Golf Magazine, used to have 2 staff photogs, now has Zero.
Sports Illustrated lost 6 photo positions this year, staff took a nearly 50% -- yes FIFTY, HALF of their salary cut.
One of the reasons behind all of this, along with declining ad sales is the availability of cheap work. Stock images like this and other images - some commissioned others not.
Not just mirco stock sites like iStock, but Corbis and Getty (which now owns iStock) both sell for pennies at times. Getty started with $50 unlimited stock sales. Everyone followed or lost sales, now the bar has been lowered to $30...
It used to be agencies set the price for their services. When I was the Design Director at a magazine, Getty charged us nearly $5000 a month, then after time, cut that fee in half. The publisher said he wasn't happy with them, so they lowered the price.
When I became Director of Photography for the entire chain, the argument I would hear constantly was we'll get Getty to shoot it for free, or I'll (Art Directors) get it here (mirco stock site) since they are cheap. So no need to hire photographers.
Magazines like TIME have had the same basic day rate for 20 years.
In 1989, I was getting $450/day from Time. Plus the paid film and expenses. Most times I shipped raw film on deadline.
Today, Time pays $500, no digital capture fee, want more rights, want more stuff, want it yesterday.
So yes there is cause for concern, concern for the industry as a whole.
Photographer
Antonio Marcus
Posts: 1849
San Francisco, California, US
Leo Howard wrote:
So, Im trying to decide if I should pull all of my images off of iStock or not.
All 2 of them haha... I have no images on iStock... because I keep failing the written test to get approved.
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6850
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Leo Howard wrote:
So, Im trying to decide if I should pull all of my images off of iStock or not.
All 2 of them Antonio Marcus wrote:
haha... I have no images on iStock... because I keep failing the written test to get approved. There's a written test now? Daaaamn
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3560
Kerhonkson, New York, US
Star wrote:
I would prefer you sent them a link to my blog, here is the link for you
http://imaginarium-the.blogspot.com/ Geeze, even your blog headline is misleading and inaccurate. You don't know how much they paid--why can't you admit that? You seem to be too emotionally invested in the debate that you have lost sight of the issue. Robert Randall has made very good points, first politely and then when you dismissed them, rather sharply. I would look forward to the information he gets from Time Inc. if they would ever disclose their business to business relationship with iStock. Unfortunately I would think they'd need a better reason than to counter your rantings.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
I'm tired of reading all the bullshit, so I'm going to see about getting some real answers. Matt is a friend of mine that works at iStock. He is the reason I signed on originally. He has worked for them since their inception. Below is an email I just sent to him. "Hey Matt,
There is a debate going on line at Model Mayhem that Iâm curious what iStock might have to say about it. Here is the link, can you send this up the chain for comment?
Bob
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=480730"
Photographer
Antonio Marcus
Posts: 1849
San Francisco, California, US
Leo Howard wrote:
Leo Howard wrote:
So, Im trying to decide if I should pull all of my images off of iStock or not.
All 2 of them There's a written test now? Daaaamn Yeah. There is a test online that you take when you apply to open a sellers account. They want to make sure you understand copyrights, minimum image quality, don't upload more images of the sky, flowers, etc.
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33899
San Francisco, California, US
The o.p. should have this thread locked because a few posters are trying to obligate him to do something that he doesn't want to do. Plus they have turned the thread into a debate thread. This is really stupid; it's nothing but circular thread jack arguments.
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US
Robert Randall wrote:
I'm tired of reading all the bullshit, so I'm going to see about getting some real answers. Matt is a friend of mine that works at iStock. He is the reason I signed on originally. He has worked for them since their inception. Below is an email I just sent to him.
"Hey Matt,
There is a debate going on line at Model Mayhem that Iâm curious what iStock might have to say about it. Here is the link, can you send this up the chain for comment?
Bob
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=480730" As mentioned in the forum thread: "If anyone every thinks they encountered a situation where a violation of the license has been made you simply need to forward it to Compliance Enforcement (ce at istockphoto dot com) and it will get looked into. Thanks!"
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
Robert Randall wrote:
I'm tired of reading all the bullshit, so I'm going to see about getting some real answers. Matt is a friend of mine that works at iStock. He is the reason I signed on originally. He has worked for them since their inception. Below is an email I just sent to him.
"Hey Matt,
There is a debate going on line at Model Mayhem that Iâm curious what iStock might have to say about it. Here is the link, can you send this up the chain for comment?
Bob
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=480730" And i called TIME, between the two of us we should get to the bottom of this, For the record, I am no longer answering anything in this thread, or reading it. I am done
Photographer
Studio 144
Posts: 394
Mayfield, Kentucky, US
I don't know if any of you read the posts on iStock forum about this before it was locked. For those who have not below is the posting from the forum moderator before he locked the thread.
+++++++++++++++++++
They use iStock images for covers quite frequently actually. I know there are a few in the Inaction forum.
Everything said in those other offsite forums could have been pulled from the same arguments made since the dawn of iStock, in which time the prices here have evolved from free to Vetta, so you'll have to forgive me if I YAWN over yet another controversy. I would discourage anyone from trying to engage those folks as I have to believe you probably have better things to do than talk to a wall.
If anyone every thinks they encountered a situation where a violation of the license has been made you simply need to forward it to Compliance Enforcement (ce at istockphoto dot com) and it will get looked into. Thanks!
++++++++++++++++++++
It would have been more reassuring if he had posted the issue would be investigated and what efforts that iStock took in regards to violations in stead of taking a cheep shot at others.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Scott A Miller photo wrote:
I see you read no further than "no."
Let me explain further my answer since you obviously wanted more.
When established pubs such as Time but these images that are so unvalued by the seller -- be it micro stock or a GWC/hobbyist newbie it hurts everyone.
Case in point and I'll stay with-in the Time-Warner - parent of TIME- for you.
Golf Magazine, used to have 2 staff photogs, now has Zero.
Sports Illustrated lost 6 photo positions this year, staff took a nearly 50% -- yes FIFTY, HALF of their salary cut.
One of the reasons behind all of this, along with declining ad sales is the availability of cheap work. Stock images like this and other images - some commissioned others not.
Not just mirco stock sites like iStock, but Corbis and Getty (which now owns iStock) both sell for pennies at times. Getty started with $50 unlimited stock sales. Everyone followed or lost sales, now the bar has been lowered to $30...
It used to be agencies set the price for their services. When I was the Design Director at a magazine, Getty charged us nearly $5000 a month, then after time, cut that fee in half. The publisher said he wasn't happy with them, so they lowered the price.
When I became Director of Photography for the entire chain, the argument I would hear constantly was we'll get Getty to shoot it for free, or I'll (Art Directors) get it here (mirco stock site) since they are cheap. So no need to hire photographers.
Magazines like TIME have had the same basic day rate for 20 years.
In 1989, I was getting $450/day from Time. Plus the paid film and expenses. Most times I shipped raw film on deadline.
Today, Time pays $500, no digital capture fee, want more rights, want more stuff, want it yesterday.
So yes there is cause for concern, concern for the industry as a whole. Here... here is what you need to read. Fact from authorities on industry trends, not personal opinion polluted with hearsay and assumption.
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=138131
http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=138023
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US
Star wrote:
between the two of us we should get to the bottom of this, The bottom of what, for goodness sakes?
Photographer
Terry D
Posts: 87
Seattle, Washington, US
This will all end badly for photographers. I see a day where magazine's will have a bidding process for a cover and even images within the magazine. Highest bidder who's photography meets the subject matter, will get the cover. Of course they will probably not get the credit as there will be a third party who is facilitating the transaction.
I'm sure everyone will laugh at this idea, but no one is laughing at the iStock business model and how many millions of images are contributed by "photographers" ?
How much would you pay to have a cover of a major magazine? Almost everyone reading this would probably do it for free at the very least. Think about it.
That's your million $$$ business idea for today.
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
I am posting this from the front page so as not to violate my I am not reading this thread anymore promise. Here is a link to some more information http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php (the contract the artist signs with istock) "iStockphoto agrees to pay a portion of the fees collected in respect of Accepted Content that is downloaded or otherwise purchased by end-users according to the rate schedule set forth on Appendix "A" to this Agreement, as it may be modified from time to time (the âRate Scheduleâ) and the licensing of Content recorded by iStockphoto." http://www.istockphoto.com/rate_schedule.php "With Subscriptions, you earn your standard canister royalty based on the percentage of each Subscriber's credit used on your files within a 24-hour period. We always guarantee the same minimum payout per credit as we do today on the Pay-as-you-go side: Base canisters will receive a minimum 19¢ and Diamond Exclusives will receive a minimum 38¢ for every credit used to download your files."
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US
We can all read the license agreements. There's no need for you to keep posting quotes from the verbiage on the site. There's nothing in those that are backing up anything you've said.
Oh, and congratulations on your morals on not coming back in here. Keep up the great work! (But stop posting).
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Star wrote:
I am posting this from the front page so as not to violate my I am not reading this thread anymore promise. Here is a link to some more information Oh my God, I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type. I can see you tagging people and avoiding cracks on the sidewalk too.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
:sigh:
So we have one ignorant person on a rant about this without ANY facts.
In my experience, iStock is very good about policing usage and whether the correct license was purchased.
I opened a thread on iStock but I think they misunderstood why I posted. The controversy, despite a few misguided individuals screaming loudly, is not over whether Time bought the right license. The controversy is about whether Time should be using microstock on covers or paying an assignment rate.
I REALLY wish the person who is going on and on and on and ON about the license would just STFU already! Speaking from ignorance just makes you look, well, ignorant.
Photographer
Holix
Posts: 855
Los Angeles, California, US
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25351
Santa Barbara, California, US
Star wrote:
actually by violating the licensing agreement they could be help liable for up to $150,000 per violation AND in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony.
saying that violating a contract should be a serious offense isn't whining or ranting. I am being cool and calm. So far nobody has shown number that contradict me.
Copyright and licensing violations are serious business. They should be treated as such, especially when concerning one of the largest magazines in the world.
Here is the calculator guys: http://www.istockphoto.com/photographer-royalties.php
you make the numbers work
and to the OP was the $31.50 for the entire month, or just that one download? Robert Randall wrote:
I'm tempted to send the photo editor at Time a link to this thread. It would be interesting to read their take on the matter. I have a feeling it would be quite different from your take. please do send it to him or her.
also, I'd love to see you post on Mr. Harrington;s blog.
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25351
Santa Barbara, California, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
:sigh:
So we have one ignorant person on a rant about this without ANY facts.
In my experience, iStock is very good about policing usage and whether the correct license was purchased.
I opened a thread on iStock but I think they misunderstood why I posted. The controversy, despite a few misguided individuals screaming loudly, is not over whether Time bought the right license. The controversy is about whether Time should be using microstock on covers or paying an assignment rate.
I REALLY wish the person who is going on and on and on and ON about the license would just STFU already! Speaking from ignorance just makes you look, well, ignorant. well, I asked this question on the thread b/f it was closed.....
so help me out here...
on istock, you don't know who downloads your stuff, correct?
so how do you know if istock is good at policing downloads/usage or not, you have no way to tell.....or do you?
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Robert Randall wrote:
I'm tempted to send the photo editor at Time a link to this thread. It would be interesting to read their take on the matter. I have a feeling it would be quite different from your take. DO IT!! DO IT!! DO IT!!
Photographer
Vegas Alien
Posts: 1747
Armington, Illinois, US
Aw hell...just go hide in Britney's bushes and get some shots of her shagging someone by the pool. You'll get more for that type of image from the rags than from Time for your stock images.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Patchouli Nyx wrote:
well, I asked this question on the thread b/f it was closed.....
so help me out here...
on istock, you don't know who downloads your stuff, correct?
so how do you know if istock is good at policing downloads/usage or not, you have no way to tell.....or do you? It is in iStock's best interest to maximize usage fees as a general thing.
Specifically, I've been told by a couple of people about iStock going after a buyer who misused an image. Hasn't happened to me yet.
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25351
Santa Barbara, California, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
It is in iStock's best interest to maximize usage fees as a general thing.
Specifically, I've been told by a couple of people about iStock going after a buyer who misused an image. Hasn't happened to me yet. that wasn't my question.
1) do you know who downloads your items and/or what the usage will be?
2) if not, how can one determine if someone is misusing your images/not paying the right amount?
Photographer
Studio 144
Posts: 394
Mayfield, Kentucky, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
It is in iStock's best interest to maximize usage fees as a general thing.
Specifically, I've been told by a couple of people about iStock going after a buyer who misused an image. Hasn't happened to me yet. You also would think it is in the best interest of Corbis not to lose more than 12,600 slides, but it happened.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
Robert Randall wrote:
Have you completely lost your mind? You, a twenty something fledgling photo school grad is accusing Time of making mistakes based on what you've read on an internet site. You can't verify anything posted in this thread, yet you're demanding they pay punitive fines. You need to step back and assess what you've written in here, because right now you aren't looking too on top of your game. I think your emotions are ruling your logic. World banks have made mistakes.....BIG mistakes costing $billions.
Time may discover this forum quicker than people may think.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote:
World banks have made mistakes.....BIG mistakes costing $billions.
Time may discover this forum quicker than people may think. I did a job for a German company that shall remain nameless. The reason they will remain nameless is that I referenced them by name on my blog, at 2:30 in the morning, when loading a video I had shot during my job for them, and by 6:00 AM that same morning I received an email from them ordering a cease and desist on the use of their name associated with the video.
I'm sure Time has a powerful web scrubber in use as well.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Scott A Miller photo wrote:
People who should and people who don't know the value of their work and continue to sell it at a highly discounted price will effect us all, no matter how you (not you) twist it. What should my rates be?
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
What should my rates be? Judging from this picture... very cheap!
![https://modelmayhm-3.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/090617/16/4a397606e3651_m.jpg]()
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
Search Exclusive Stock Library. Low-Res £1, Med-Res £3, High-Res £5.
Lol someones watching a istock adv (google) on this very forum.
scary
|
